NationStates

So how do pro-life people deal with the fact that it is the poor who get a large percentage of abortions. In the US women who are less then 100% of the poverty level had half of all abortions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678377/

Neutraligon wrote:So how do pro-life people deal with the fact that it is the poor who get a large percentage of abortions. In the US women who are less then 100% of the poverty level had half of all abortions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678377/

Because raising children when you're poor is a good way to be stuck in poverty.
Kids are fucking expensive and not everyone is responsible enough to be a parent.

Christian Confederation wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:I am absolutely amazed that you are still doubling down with the same smokescreening shit to avoid the question of failed contraception.

Contraception can't fail if you don't have sex in term no unwanted pregnancy.

You can't get pregnant without sperm.
Let's sterilize all men who aren't ready to become fathers./sarcasm

Neanderthaland wrote:

Christian Confederation wrote:Contraception can't fail if you don't have sex in term no unwanted pregnancy.

Your entire religion is based on the idea that this isn't true.

Neanderthaland wrote:

Christian Confederation wrote:Contraception can't fail if you don't have sex in term no unwanted pregnancy.

Your entire religion is based on the idea that this isn't true.

This. I’m sigging this.

Neutraligon wrote:So how do pro-life people deal with the fact that it is the poor who get a large percentage of abortions. In the US women who are less then 100% of the poverty level had half of all abortions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678377/

They complain about women and children on welfare, obviously, once they've prevented women from taking the measures that would keep them from needing welfare. And they tut about how horrible it is that there are kids languishing in foster care when they could have reduced that number too, by not preventing women from having abortions and telling them 'you can just put it up for adoption anyhow.'

Katganistan wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:So how do pro-life people deal with the fact that it is the poor who get a large percentage of abortions. In the US women who are less then 100% of the poverty level had half of all abortions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678377/

They complain about women and children on welfare, obviously, once they've prevented women from taking the measures that would keep them from needing welfare. And they tut about how horrible it is that there are kids languishing in foster care when they could have reduced that number too, by not preventing women from having abortions and telling them 'you can just put it up for adoption anyhow.'

I suppose it really is an inhuman stance not to want to kill the poors so they don't end up on welfare.

Aellex wrote:

Katganistan wrote:
They complain about women and children on welfare, obviously, once they've prevented women from taking the measures that would keep them from needing welfare. And they tut about how horrible it is that there are kids languishing in foster care when they could have reduced that number too, by not preventing women from having abortions and telling them 'you can just put it up for adoption anyhow.'

I suppose it really is an inhuman stance not to want to kill the poors so they don't end up on welfare.

What's inhuman is preventing women from having the ability to control their own bodies, then shaming them for needing help when you've wrested that control from them.

But thanks for being obtuse.

Katganistan wrote:

Aellex wrote:I suppose it really is an inhuman stance not to want to kill the poors so they don't end up on welfare.

What's inhuman is preventing women from having the ability to control their own bodies, then shaming them for needing help when you've wrested that control from them.

But thanks for being obtuse.

I wonder if the number of abortions would go down if those women did not need to worry about supporting a child.

Neutraligon wrote:

Katganistan wrote:What's inhuman is preventing women from having the ability to control their own bodies, then shaming them for needing help when you've wrested that control from them.

But thanks for being obtuse.

I wonder if the number of abortions would go down if those women did not need to worry about supporting a child.

Most likely, but you should know better than to make sense in NSG.

Neutraligon wrote:

Katganistan wrote:What's inhuman is preventing women from having the ability to control their own bodies, then shaming them for needing help when you've wrested that control from them.

But thanks for being obtuse.

I wonder if the number of abortions would go down if those women did not need to worry about supporting a child.

Probably. But one side seems to like punishing women twice for having sex.

Anyone who's been in these threads knows I am a strong supporter of accessible birth control and comprehensive sex education. I don't like abortion, personally, but refusing access to birth control, refusing comprehensive sex ed in favor of abstinence programs, refusing access to reproductive services seems to squarely place women in an untenable position -- and then they are shamed for it. Then we hear about how much is going to social welfare programs -- well, if there were easy access to birth control and real sex ed, there would be less need for abortion, foster care, and welfare.

Soooooo... one of the organizers of the most recent rally against the legalization of abortion pulled the "what if the child consents tho" card in a discussion about a little girl who got pregnant after her grandmother's partner raped her.

These people are a political dead weight.

Neanderthaland wrote:

Christian Confederation wrote:Contraception can't fail if you don't have sex in term no unwanted pregnancy.

Your entire religion is based on the idea that this isn't true.

Ohhh cmon, that was just the one time!

Katganistan wrote:Oh, seriously, fuck that noise.
That bullshit of "greater beauty and dignity" is a dogwhistle some men have used to put women on a pedestal they then chain her to.

You don't have to teach me about men who put women on a piedestal, thank you. In my experience, these are often the emotionally repressed superficially “submissive” guys that (again, in my experience.. not saying this is a "fact" or anything) are plenty in both left-wing and X-tian groups of folks.

They're actually a bigger problem than stereotypical “toxic masculinity” bad boys because people have a hard time believing in them being something entirely else when the lights go off.

Katganistan wrote:Women who are not submissive and suboordinate are deemed 'ugly' and 'undignified', if not outright whores.

Yeh I'm totally a typical toxic submissive. Really. Always quiet. Never going against the flow. Or against the flow in the couter-flow. Heh.

Like I wrote earlier, if you gonna make a strawwoman – might you at least make one with some resemblance to your object of criticism..? That could be a little easier to relate to... methinks..

Katganistan wrote:And to be blunt, if men are less empathic, they are mentally ill. Now I don't know about you, but as a rule, men are not 'less empathic' -- I know plenty of caring compassionate men. "Men don't care as much" is the kind of toxic masculinity bullshit that harms both men and women, so please, just stop.

Eh... but - they are. In general at least. And it's not hard to understand why... since women are programmed to have babies. Men are not.

There are studies documenting behavioral differences in the recall of emotional events by men and women: women seem to have stronger and more detailed memories of emotional events and are able to bring them to mind more quickly. So the idea is that the increase in memory strength that happens with emotion is bigger in women than in men, on average.

And while this memory enhancement sounds like a benefit, it might also be one of the reasons why women tend to be diagnosed more frequently with disorders like depression, anxiety and PTSD. And there’s some evidence that memory for things that happened just before an emotional event is worse in women than in men.

You know, especially in relation to the mental health aspects of it, I think we should be rather thankful that not all scientists are following some kind of egalitarian dogma that denies the innate differences between the male and female essence. And I am happy to not be as logical and unemotional as the average male and would like to stay that way, thank you. People with those traits often have a tendency to either bore the snow out of me or irritate me with their convoluted hard-to-emotionally-relate to stuff and games. Not saying those types are inherently bad or whatever... but its just not my style.

Katganistan wrote:The sexual revolution was NOT about "men's desires and women have to suffer the consequences." That's how YOU see it, and how a certain toxic strain of men see it.

Spearheaded by Hugh Hefner/Playboy, Big Pharma and the sexual predator Alfred Kinsey. Yeh. I'm sure none of those have anything to do with male sexual exploitation of women... or making money of it.

Katganistan wrote:The sexual revolution was recognizing that everyone, men and women, have a right to enjoy sex.

I certainly got nothing against enjoying sex. If you have a beef with submissive Christians you too.. take it with them.
The general prudeness of folks is a problem that goes beyond sex though... -.-

Katganistan wrote:Certain men don't like that idea because then women do not have to cater to men's sexual wishes if the woman can pursue their own -- and God forbid women have other partners' skills to compare to their current one's? Male insecurity in knowing a woman may consider their prowess inferior to others -- or that a woman may choose to find a more satisfying partner -- is the basis of this patronizing and frankly possessive 'women should remain virgins til married' idiocy.

You know, I think you're preaching to the wrong person here. I've basically stated this myself – YHWH (who I suspect is like a demon to use their own terminology) is on many occasions like a perfect deity for insecure and jealous men and women who feel inferior and wants to deny others the strengths nature gave them to feel better themselves. I suspect the seeds of the ideas that a lot of the red tapist "equality" stuff that's so popular in this thread actually came from X-tianity in the beginning. But that's a discussion for another topic.. I know..

But here is the thing though: male sexuality is inherently more primitive.. for reasons that are kinda obvious imho. A man can get eh.. you know... basically with a hole in the wall like ten times a day if he wants. A woman may not end up satisfied even with the sexiest man she can think of in bed. This has complications for how people act and relate to intimate business. We also have that tiiiny little difference that a woman can get pregnant of course. All this makes the egalitarian dogma so absurd and reality-ignoring. I believe that if you apply the same standards to both sexes in regards to sex stuff, you're gonna end up with women having to suffer from consequences of men's sexual desires.. and I believe that's kinda what's happened too.

Katganistan wrote:Women DON'T have to suffer the consequences. Roe v. Wade saw to that in the US and in most civilized nations of the world -- which is why toxic men who want to control women are fighting so very fucking hard to erode the ability of women to seek abortions. Close Planned Parenthood -- which also, by the way, provides mammography services and helps families that PLAN to have children to do that. Make laws that make it impossible for clinics to operate with the bullshit excuse 'they can go elsewhere' -- when 'elsewhere' might be hundreds of miles away and someone too poor to get there. The only reason women 'suffer the consequences' is because men force it on them, to keep them under male control.

But abortions do hurt women. Big time. Both physically and emotionally. This is not strange at all – nature made women feel bad to lose a child. The sheer lack of basis in reality of these post-modern ideologies thought up by some “intellectual” male weirdos somewhere is staggering. And as always, women are the ones to suffer the consequences.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/24/new ... rts-women/

Of the women surveyed, only 6.6 percent reported using psychotropic drugs prior to their first pregnancy resulting in an abortion, compared to 51 percent who stated they used prescription drugs for mental health issues after their abortion. The results of the study demonstrate abortion’s dynamic nature, and successfully capture the kaleidoscope of emotions that women internalize after having the procedure.

I could add that my own country cut mammography to finance asylum seekers but that's way off topic I guess lol. Not entire unrelatable though – this idea that men do not have a natural duty to protect women is a very bad thing when our societies are dealing with phenomenons like gang rapes, “taharrush” etc. I'll gladly have a bunch of “toxic masculine” men around to not risk such things, thank you.

Aellex wrote:I suppose it really is an inhuman stance not to want to kill the poors so they don't end up on welfare.

Yeh. Word.

Katganistan wrote:What's inhuman is preventing women from having the ability to control their own bodies, then shaming them for needing help when you've wrested that control from them.

But thanks for being obtuse.

Afaik... this over-repeated claim is about as "factual" as any X-tian belief in virgin births.

The baby fetus is not part of the woman's body. It has its own blood system (which can be of another blood group etc.) and its own DNA from the start. Not that I think it matters really - since I don't accept all of this typically male "logical" stuff about "rights" and personal autonomy anyway.. But the claim is ridiculous in itself.. even from some "scientific" standard. It's just some kind of political/religious dogma that suits a certain agenda. Imho.

Anyone can search the internet and have a look at what kind of bestial slaughter we're actually talking about here. To me.. it's a typically toxic male invention to further a typically toxic male agenda.

(not trying to shame guys here in general ofc.. just pointing out how abortions seem like an example of the downside of everything "masculine" - both the sheer brutality and the "logic" stuff)

Katganistan wrote:Probably. But one side seems to like punishing women twice for having sex.

Anyone who's been in these threads knows I am a strong supporter of accessible birth control and comprehensive sex education. I don't like abortion, personally, but refusing access to birth control, refusing comprehensive sex ed in favor of abstinence programs, refusing access to reproductive services seems to squarely place women in an untenable position -- and then they are shamed for it. Then we hear about how much is going to social welfare programs -- well, if there were easy access to birth control and real sex ed, there would be less need for abortion, foster care, and welfare.

Yeh and in fact - the availability of condoms etc. is one of the reasons I can't feel on-demand abortion is justifiable. If a guy refuses to wear a rubber - throw him out ffs... -.-

The Feylands wrote:The baby fetus is not part of the woman's body. It has its own blood system (which can be of another blood group etc.) and its own DNA from the start.

It is still linked to her using the placenta as an intermediary. It is dependent on the woman's body for nutrients etc, so it does infringe on her bodily sovereignty.

The Feylands wrote:Not that I think it matters really - since I don't accept all of this typically male "logical" stuff about "rights" and personal autonomy anyway.

How are rights and personal autonomy "male"? Why the fuck are you gendering terms that are genderless?

The Feylands wrote:the availability of condoms etc. is one of the reasons I can't feel on-demand abortion is justifiable. If a guy refuses to wear a rubber - throw him out ffs... -.-

Contraception can and does fail. That point has been constantly emphasised for 4 or 5 of these abortion threads, so why are people still overlooking it? I can only assume that it is selective blindness...

Liriena wrote:Soooooo... one of the organizers of the most recent rally against the legalization of abortion pulled the "what if the child consents tho" card in a discussion about a little girl who got pregnant after her grandmother's partner raped her.

These people are a political dead weight.

A child cannot give consent.

Cruciland wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:Your entire religion is based on the idea that this isn't true.

Ohhh cmon, that was just the one time!

Nope. Also happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

San Lumen wrote:

Liriena wrote:Soooooo... one of the organizers of the most recent rally against the legalization of abortion pulled the "what if the child consents tho" card in a discussion about a little girl who got pregnant after her grandmother's partner raped her.

These people are a political dead weight.

A child cannot give consent.

That seems to have been the thrust of Liriena's point, yes.

San Lumen wrote:

Liriena wrote:Soooooo... one of the organizers of the most recent rally against the legalization of abortion pulled the "what if the child consents tho" card in a discussion about a little girl who got pregnant after her grandmother's partner raped her.

These people are a political dead weight.

A child cannot give consent.

it is part of the mother, so it's fair to defer to her. Also, it's a fetus. not a child.

Crysuko wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
A child cannot give consent.

it is part of the mother, so it's fair to defer to her. Also, it's a fetus. not a child.

They aren't referring to the fetus, they are referring to the horrible situation whereby a child is pregnant as a result of a rape committed by a family member.

In other news, if either of your parents are a rapist you can be put to death. Apparently.

Liriena wrote:Soooooo... one of the organizers of the most recent rally against the legalization of abortion pulled the "what if the child consents tho" card in a discussion about a little girl who got pregnant after her grandmother's partner raped her.

These people are a political dead weight.

There is no gif from lefttube, breadtube, or any YouTuber whomst is good for this Y I K E S.

Godular wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:I have to pay taxes even though I don't want to. Am I enslaved? Are those drafted into military service enslaved? The point is that we often make justifications for force, yet we do not consider ourselves in bondage. Society is largely nonconsensual.

I take your strawmen and set fire to them. This is about things done to a person's body against their will, not whether you have to deal with some kind of inconvenience FOR WHICH YOU RECEIVE BENEFITS.

In that case, military service under the draft is using a person's body without their consent.

Liriena wrote:Soooooo... one of the organizers of the most recent rally against the legalization of abortion pulled the "what if the child consents tho" card in a discussion about a little girl who got pregnant after her grandmother's partner raped her.

These people are a political dead weight.

The very few people arguing that are indeed ignorant. Which rally are you referring to, though?

Katganistan wrote:

Aellex wrote:I suppose it really is an inhuman stance not to want to kill the poors so they don't end up on welfare.

What's inhuman is preventing women from having the ability to control their own bodies, then shaming them for needing help when you've wrested that control from them.

But thanks for being obtuse.

If a fetus were fully part of the mother's body, it would not have a unique genetic code.

The Forlorn Redoubt wrote:In other news, if either of your parents are a rapist you can be put to death. Apparently.

Nope.

On the other hand, there clearly exist a whole lot of people who want to force victims of child rape to bear children and possibly die in the process.